Yeah, this is what I don’t get. “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” This is a quote for a reason. Everything is just a remix of something else. Just look at the shit Andy Warhol put out.

Also, you can’t copyright AI art, so I’m not sure what the point of paying money for AI art is for.

You have constitutional amendments for this exact scenario.

WTF does this actually mean? You do realize that constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds majority, right?

And what the hell amendment are you suggesting?

Did you not see Mr. Robot?

It’s been a while since I played with it, but the Dynamic Prompts extension has some options for creating random prompts and combinations. It’s neat to have it run through a hundred images to see what it creates, find the interesting ones, and then focus on that prompt for some more refined images. Or upscale and inpaint/outpaint the ones you want.

Well, the great thing about Stable Diffusion is that you can inpaint things to fix small issues like that.

What people don’t get about AI art, is that the mistakes it makes are because somebody spent five minutes making an image and didn’t bother with the extra few hours of polish.

The more they fire employees, the more likely those employees are critical to cybersecurity and IT.

I’m sure that’s a feature and not a bug, so that they can cripple government resources. But, it’s a double-edged sword, as activists can hack in the same way.

Have a bunch of fun with Stable Diffusion and whatever models you feel like downloading on CivitAI.

There are several “good” LLMs trained on open datasets like FineWeb, LAION, DataComp, etc.

Then use those as training data. You’re too caught up on this exacting definition of open source that you’ll completely ignore the benefits of what this model could provide.

an LLM could decide to, for example, summarize and compress some context full of trade secrets, then proceed to “search” for it, sending it to wherever it has access to.

That’s not how LLMs work, and you know it. A model of weights is not a lossless compression algorithm.

Also, if you’re giving an LLM free reign to all of your session tokens and security passwords, that’s on you.

Wow, it’s like you didn’t even read my post.

You’re purposely being obtuse, and not arguing in good faith. The source code is right there, in the other repos owned by the deepseek-ai user.

Nobody releases training data. It’s too large and varied. The best I’ve seen was the LAION-2B set that Stable Diffusion used, and that’s still just a big collection of links. Even that isn’t going to fit on a GitHub repo.

Besides, improving the model means using the model as a base and implementing new training data. Specialize, specialize, specialize.

This literally took one click: https://github.com/deepseek-ai

Stop spreading FUD.

readable only by the original owner

Right now it’s not. All encryption gets its back broken by security flaws and brute force mathematics.

AI-generated materials are already exempt from copyright. It falls under the same arguments as the monkey selfie. Which is great.

Crack copyright like a fucking egg. It only benefited the rich, anyway.

If you take that image, copy it and then try to resell it for profit you’ll find you’re quickly in breach of copyright.

That’s not what’s happening. Did you even read my comment?

The Alex Jones bankruptcy is the first time I’ve seen anyone fined significantly to the point of it mattering.

The Alex Jones case is a textbook example of what happens when a rich person is so overconfident that he does even less than the absolute bare minimum to defend himself in a court case. He defaulted on the case! That’s the absolute zero of stupidity in legal terms.

I don’t really consider the Alex Jones case to be a win. It was a fluke, and if he had even put up a slight bit of effort, it would have turned out very differently. You know, like 99% of the other cases where the rich is legally attacking the poor.

I guess the idea is that the models themselves are not infringing copyright, but the training process DID.

I’m still not understanding the logic. Here is a copyrighted picture. I can search for it, download it, view it, see it with my own eye balls. My browser already downloaded the image for me, in order for me to see it in the browser. I can take that image and edit it in a photo editor. I can do whatever I want with the image on my own computer, as long as I don’t publish the image elsewhere on the internet. All of that is legal. None of it infringes on copyright.

Hell, it could be argued that if I transform the image to a significant degree, I can still publish it under Fair Use. But, that still gets into a gray area for each use case.

What is not a gray area is what AI training does. They download the image and use it in training, which is like me looking at a picture in a browser. The image isn’t republished, or stored in the published model, or represented in any way that could be reconstructed back to the source image in any reasonable form. It just changes a bunch of weights in a LLM model. It’s mathematically impossible for a 4GB model to somehow store the many many terabytes of images on the internet.

Where is the copyright infringement?

I remember stories about the RIAA suing individuals for many thousands of dollars per mp3 they downloaded. If you applied that logic to OpenAI — maximum fine for every individual work used — it’d instantly bankrupt them. Honestly, I’d love to see it. But I don’t think any copyright holder has the balls to try that against someone who can afford lawyers. They’re just bullies.

You want to use the same bullshit tactics and unreasonable math that the RIAA used in their court cases?

Legislators have to come up with a way to handle how copyright works in conjunction with AI.

That’s the neat part. It doesn’t.

Copyright hasn’t worked for the past 100 years. Copyright was borne out of an social agreement that works generated from it would enter public domain in a reasonable time frame. Thanks to Mark Twain and Disney, the limit is basically forever, or it might as well be. Here we are still arguing about the next Bond film for a book series that was made in the fucking 1950s. Or the Lord of the Rings series, the genesis of all fantasy. Or thousands of other things that deserve to be in public domain already.

Copyright is a blunt tool that rich people use to bash the poor with. Whatever you think copyright is doing to protect your rights or your works is easy enough for them to just spend enough money with lawyers and cases until you cave. If copyright isn’t working for the public good, then we should abolish it.

People hate AI because it’s mostly developed and used by the rich as a shitty way to save money and layoff even more people than we’ve already had. But, it doesn’t have to be. All of these LLM projects were based on freely available research. Hell, Stable Diffusion is still something you can just download and use for free, despite the fact that Stability AI is still trying to wrestle back their own control into the model.

Instead of sticking our ears in our fingers and saying “la la la la, AI doesn’t exist, it must be destroyed/regulated/fined”, we could push this technology to open sourced as much as possible. I mean, let’s assume that we somehow regulate AI so that people have to pay to use copyrighted works for training (as absurd as that is). AI training goes down drastically, and stagnates. Counties like China are not going to follow those same rules, and eventually, China will be the technological leader here.

Or the program works, and other people who don’t give a shit about copyright freely allow AI to train their works. Then you have AI models that have to follow these arcane rules, but arrived at the same spot, anyway, but only for the rich people who can afford the systems that allow for that regulation. What the fuck was the point in the regulation, except to make it even more expensive to make?

It’s bizarre they haven’t shut down this .ru domain.

Why is this coming from a Russian site?